Standing Committee A

[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill - Clause 12 - Local government review

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 44, in page 6, line 9, at end insert 
'and shall publish all such views, information and evidence in an appropriate form.'.—[Matthew Green.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

John Butterfill: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 19, in
clause 12, page 6, line 38, at end insert 'and published their response'.

Nick Raynsford: I was about to invite the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) to withdraw his amendment and to ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) not to press his amendment, but—the word obviously has a certain significance—I recall being asked a question, of which I unfortunately did not make a note, immediately before we broke for lunch. If any Member can recall that question, I shall be only too happy to try to answer it; if not, perhaps we can cover it in our subsequent debates on the clause.

Matthew Green: I am delighted by the Minister's assurances, which are now on the record, about the information being published, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
clause 12, page 6, line 11, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

John Butterfill: With this we may discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 53, in 
clause 12, page 6, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).
 Amendment No. 45, in 
clause 12, page 6, line 18, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
 Amendment No. 54, in 
clause 12, in page 6, line 20, leave out paragraph (d).

Philip Hammond: As I am sure you have been informed, Mr. Butterfill, we had a lengthy but useful and interesting debate on the first two groups of amendments. I hope that we will able to speed up a little this afternoon, and I hope that the Minister will support us in that attempt.

John Butterfill: Order. On that point, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say that, given the considerable debate on the amendments that have already been proposed and our consideration of all the clause's salient points, in considering the remaining
 amendments I am minded at the moment not to allow a stand part debate on this clause.

Philip Hammond: Looking at my notes, I see that I was going to raise a couple of points in the clause stand part debate, but perhaps I will attempt to stretch your tolerance by including them in my remarks on this group of amendments, Mr. Butterfill.

John Butterfill: I am happy to receive them.

Philip Hammond: The style of amendment No. 16 will be familiar to the Minister and his ministerial colleagues. It is an entirely legitimate attempt by the Opposition to remove a little discretion from Ministers and to make the Bill a little more prescriptive in terms of what the Secretary of State has to do. In this case, it would remove the Secretary of State's discretionary power to consider the matters laid out in subsection (5). Instead of saying that the Secretary of State ''may'' consider the matters laid out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), subsection (5) would require the Secretary of State to consider them. Those matters need to be considered, and to use the word ''may'' would again leave too much discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State, and, critically, would make it impossible for anybody to bring an action for a review of his decision on the basis that he had not considered any of those five listed matters.
 If the clause were reworded to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consider each of those matters, it would at least in theory be possible to examine whether he had properly considered them. I put it to the Minister that the amendment is a tidying up exercise to remove a little of the very wide discretion that the Bill gives the Secretary of State in the interests of a more transparent and ultimately more challengeable decision, although no one seeks to encourage the unnecessary use of the courts. 
 The Liberal Democrats will speak about amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 45, which raise an important issue, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on their arguments until they have put them. I hope to have an opportunity to speak again once I have heard their arguments.

Edward Davey: May I start by apologising to the Committee for my absence this morning? I was making representations to a Minister on the future of Kingston's magistrates court. My constituents wanted me there and there was no way to reorganise the Minister's diary. I understand that I missed a significant debate, which was dominated by Conservative Members, on the word ''but''. I know that they were obviously promoting their constituents' interests in that very interesting debate, and I shall read Hansard with some care.
 Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 45 address our worry that the Government will use some of the powers in subsection (5) to try to stop some regions calling a referendum. The Government's purpose, which was behind both the White Paper and the Bill, is to give choice to regions. When regions want to call referendums to see whether their people want to set up regional assemblies, they should be encouraged to do so and there should be no barriers in their way. Our concern about subsection (5) is that the Government 
 are almost giving themselves opt-outs or exits. If, having taken that interest into account, they are worried about the result of a referendum—we will hear about that when we debate clause 1 in the Committee of the whole House—clause 12 will provide them with some reasons for saying, ''This region cannot go forward.'' We are worried because that goes against the whole idea of choice and could be a barrier to progress in setting up regional assemblies. 
 We therefore cannot understand why paragraphs (c) and (d) are necessary, which explains the tabling of amendments Nos. 53 and 54. The Minister ought to be ensuring that the boundary committee has the necessary resources. That is one of his jobs, and he should not prevent the boundary committee from making recommendations if the regions want to go ahead with democratising all the quangos in their area. We want to tease him for some answers on why he is putting little escape routes in the Bill for the Secretary of State. 
 Amendment No. 45 is slightly different. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister is prepared to share his thoughts with the Committee by putting on the record which regions are likely to be ready to go to a referendum. It is particularly interesting that the figure two is used in subsection 5(c). I infer from the extra power that the Minister wants to give himself that only one region is likely to be ready. The boundary commission has the resources to allow only one region that does not have unitary authorities to have its local authorities' boundaries reviewed. The Government therefore want to try to restrict any other regions calling referendums. I understand that there is quite a lot of interest in at least two, and arguably three, regions. 
 We have discussed the north-east region in this Committee before, but there is much interest in the north-west region—although the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) may disagree—in a regional assembly. That is borne out by some polling evidence. I understand that there is also much interest in the Yorkshire region. There are at least three regions where there is a groundswell of support for the idea of a regional assembly. Obviously, the Minister will have to test out the real interest, which is why clause 1 is there, but even at this early stage we could take that groundswell of support as a sign of real interest in the process.

Philip Hammond: Does not the hon. Gentleman detect, in the phrasing of the provision to which he objects, a degree of prejudgment on the Government's part?
Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says no before he has even heard the argument, which, if I may say so, is rather telling in itself.
 This issue relates to the boundary committee's resources. The clause is expressed in terms of ''two or more regions'' and, clearly, the north-west and the north-east are not very large regions. Does the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) agree 
 that if the Minister thinks it would stretch the boundary committee's capability to deal with the north-east and the north-west at the same time, it would almost certainly be impossible for it to deal with the south-east in the same period? That is a much larger region than the north-east and the north-west combined.

Edward Davey: There is concern, although I would put it in a slightly different way. If the Minister cannot reassure this Committee that the boundary committee for England will have enough resources to cope with two regions at the same time, he is not reassuring us that he has real faith and belief in the Bill. If he cannot accept amendment No. 45, to reassure the Committee that the boundary committee will have the resources needed to undertake the local government reviews for at least two regions, he is almost arguing against his Bill.
 I should have thought that the Minister would be rather more ambitious. He is highly regarded on both sides of the House. He certainly has support for this measure from my party and those on his own Benches. Why, then, does he want this power? I should have thought that he would want to facilitate referendums in as many regions as possible, rather than trying to restrict them. Perhaps he knows something that we do not: either, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge implied, he is not going to grant the boundary committee the necessary budget or he is making a prejudgment on the level of interest. Perhaps the Government will be very timid and cautious about applying the tests on interest and will tread far too gingerly towards regional devolution in England. 
 That is why we want to press the Minister on this point. My party has a much more ambitious approach to regional devolution and much greater faith in the people in the regions, particularly in the north-west and north-east, who we believe are very keen to have their regional aspirations recognised and bring the quangos in their areas to democratic accountability. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that. 
 I am against the Conservatives' amendment No. 16, which would replace ''may'' with ''shall''. To require the Secretary of State to take the considerations in the clause into account is, I think, the wrong way to go about it. In many ways, one might want the whole of subsection (5) deleted. Keeping the wording ''may'' at least gives him some flexibility. Requiring him to take those into account, which the Conservatives want, is really an argument against regional assemblies. We have long suspected that that is where they are coming from.

Nick Raynsford: We are discussing four amendments. The first was moved by the Conservative Opposition; the remaining three are Liberal Democrat amendments. They are mutually contradictory, but that is no surprise.
 Amendment No. 16 would substitute the word ''shall'' for the word ''may''. The problem is that that is entirely inappropriate. The particular provisions in subsection (5), which the Secretary of State ''may'' consider, do not necessarily come into play in all circumstances. For example, if only one regional 
 referendum were being directed, there would be no question of the need to assess the boundary committee's capability to carry out two or more boundary reviews simultaneously. That is why the wording is discretionary; all the conditions will not necessarily be involved in all cases. I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw his amendment. I understand his wish to bind the Secretary of State, rather than giving him discretion but he will, I hope, accept that there is an absolute logic in this case, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton clearly recognised. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman is with us today and was not banged up in his constituency this morning as a result of making representations about the role of the courts.

Desmond Swayne: The Minister may be glad.

Nick Raynsford: What an uncharitable comment from the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I think that we all welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—[Interruption.] I shall not take this any further.
 The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, too, has misunderstood the purpose of the reference to ''two or more''. That does not mean that the Government are envisaging only two referendums. We have a completely open mind and are consulting and taking soundings at the moment. We will be guided by the response to them. 
 However, there will clearly be implications if there are larger numbers of referendums, which should be taken into account. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that resources should simply be provided without question, whatever the requirement for the boundary committee. Boundary reviews are complex and quite expensive, and a finite number of people is available to the committee to carry out that work. If all eight regions were subject to simultaneous reviews, that would stretch the committee to an intolerable degree, requiring a substantial injection of extra resources or a substantially longer period of time. I do not believe that it is right or proper to be profligate with resources, nor do I believe it right or proper to delay the process unduly. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to take the factors listed here into account.

Edward Davey: I understand the Minister's point on profligacy, but can I push him on amendment No. 45? Why is he restricting the number to two? Surely the boundary committee will have enough resources to carry out local government reviews in two regions at the same time. If it will not, I am worried about the Government's resourcing of that committee.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are very considerable differences. If the boundary committee were requested to conduct a review in Yorkshire and Humberside and a review in the north-east, in the first region, 90 per cent. of the population already live in unitary authorities, and the area under a two-tier authority, although geographically large because it covers the whole of
 North Yorkshire, involves a relatively small proportion of the total population. In the north-east, some two-thirds already live in a unitary authority and a review would be necessary only in the counties of Northumberland and Durham.
 The work involved in conducting reviews in those two regions simultaneously would be minute by comparison with the amount of work necessary to conduct a review across the south-east, where an overwhelming majority of people live in two-tier authorities. The amount of work necessary there would be far greater. It is clearly necessary for the Secretary of State to give some attention to the resource issues involved here.

Edward Davey: The Minister is being very helpful—he probably realises how helpful he is being. There are people in the campaigns for regional assemblies in the Yorkshire region and the north-east who are concerned that the boundary committee might decide to do a review in the Yorkshire region because it would be easier, and that the Minister might then decide that the committee does not have the resources needed to carry one out in the north-east at the same time.
 One reason why we tabled the amendment and triggered the debate was to get the Minister on the record saying that the boundary committee for England will have enough resources to undertake local government reviews in the north-east, the Yorkshire region and, arguably, the north-west region at the same time. Perhaps the real reason behind the Minister's concern and inclusion of this subsection is that he has in mind reviews for other regions, such as the south-east and perhaps the west midlands, rather than for the regions that I have mentioned.

Nick Raynsford: We have no preconceptions on the matter. We shall approach it on the basis of the response to the soundings, and will determine in the light of them whether there is a good measure of interest in one, two, three, four or more regions. If there is a lack of strong evidence one way or another in a region, we may want to take other factors into account, including the impact on local government. We accept that a structural review causes a degree of disruption and will take that into account.
Mr. Davey rose—

Nick Raynsford: Before I give way again, let me make it clear that we believe that every region in the country should have the opportunity to conduct a referendum for an elected regional assembly. We want that choice to be available; we shall listen to the soundings, and reach a proper and mature judgment in light of the responses.

Edward Davey: I am sure that the record will show this, but I think that the Minister said to undertake local government reviews in Yorkshire and the north-east will involve relatively minute amounts of resources because unitary authorities already predominate in those regions. Is the Minister now saying that there may be a resource problem in carrying out government reviews in both regions simultaneously?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. I was making the point that by comparison with other regions—I used the south-east as an obvious comparator—there is less demand and pressure on resources for conducting reviews in the two regions that I mentioned because a lower proportion of the population live in two-tier authorities.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the job in the north-east will be much easier, not just because two thirds of people already live under unitary councils, but because much of the work was done in 1992 when the Banham commission proposed to Durham, for example, a unitary council structure based on that at county level? Perhaps some of that work will help to ensure that the process is quicker.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Previous evidence from previous reviews can be called as evidence in certain cases. The important point is to approach the matter pragmatically; it is not just question of money. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is thinking of resources as cash, but it is also expertise. The personnel with the necessary expertise and skills to conduct a boundary review are limited in number. It would be considerably stretching that resource if it were invited to conduct simultaneous reviews in a large number of regions. We must take that into account because it would clearly have an impact on the speed at which a review could be conducted, and therefore the speed at which we move towards a referendum.
 We are approaching the matter sensibly and pragmatically. We have set out the primary obligation, which is to measure the degree of interest. We have then set out the other factors that may—but do not have to—be taken into account by the Secretary of State. They include pragmatic considerations of the ability of the boundary committee to conduct in a proper, thorough and responsible way the necessary review into a wholly unitary structure for local government. We accept that that will vary depending on the choice of regions because of the already considerable variations between regions in the number of two-tier as against unitary authorities. I hope that the Committee agree that the Government have adopted a pragmatic approach. 
 I think that I have covered all the points raised in the debate so far. I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Davey: I listened to the Minister with interest. I am not surprised that he is using the argument of pragmatism, because he is nothing but practical in his approach to such questions. I am a little disappointed that he cannot provide greater reassurances, because our proceedings are carefully read by people involved in these campaigns, and many people in the regions that I mentioned—Yorkshire, the north-east and, arguably, the north-west—are concerned about the power that the Minister will have under subsection (5). I should have thought that he could at least reassure us that the boundary committee for England will have enough resources to undertake local government
 reviews simultaneously in those three regions. He was right to say that it would be a problem if all the regions of England wanted a referendum at the same time. However, that does not prevent him—unless he feels constrained in some way—from reassuring members of the Committee and people who are interested in the campaigns that he cannot envisage a resource problem, either of cash or expertise, in the three regions that I mentioned. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I should like the Minister to put that on the record.

Philip Hammond: I suspect that the Minister was wise to resist the enticements of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton to put on the record the evidence that he was pre-empting decisions that we all have to pretend have not been taken, including which regions will be the first to hold a referendum. We have to maintain that cover story. I can, however, confidently predict to the hon. Minister for Kingston and Surbiton—[Interruption.] Today, the magistrates court; tomorrow, perhaps, the church—who knows? It had not occurred to me that hon. Members would put any different construction on that remark.
 I can confidently predict to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that if the Government are confident that they can get the result that they want from a referendum in two or three regions, whichever they are, the boundary committee will miraculously find that it has the resources that it needs to do the job. I do not expect a little thing like resources to get in the way of the Deputy Prime Minister if he sees the opportunity to pursue his political agenda. 
 I was somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response to amendment No. 16. He made it sound as though he sympathised with its objective but was sadly unable to accept it because it was technically deficient in that paragraph (c) would not apply in all cases. It is only one paragraph of five, and I suspect that the Secretary of State would be able to consider the implications, which would clearly be none in the case that the Minister postulates. I have debated with many Ministers over many years the relative merits of the words ''may'' and ''shall'' in relation to actions to be carried out by Secretaries of State. I shall not detain the Committee by pressing the amendment, but the wide discretion that is given to Ministers is an issue that we shall want to scrutinise throughout the consideration of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
clause 12, page 6, line 24, at end insert— 
 '(5A) If the Secretary of State makes a direction under subsection (1) he shall cause to be paid to every relevant local authority in the region concerned such sum as the Boundary Committee shall advise him represents a reasonable estimate of the likely cost (in the case of each individual relevant authority) to that authority of the direction.'.
 The amendment approaches the resource issue from a slightly different angle. It would provide that the Secretary of State will make available to local 
 authorities that are affected by the review process an appropriate sum of money to defray the costs that they will incur. That is a procedure which, whatever the merits of the substantive debate about elected regional assemblies, most local authorities—even those in favour of regional assemblies—will be very reluctant to shoulder. It seems to me that that is being foisted upon them as part of the Government's political agenda. In an ideal world, the Labour party would pay the cost out of its own coffers, but I understand that those are not too overflowing at the moment. At the very least, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should dig deep into its departmental budget to support the costs incurred by local authorities in the course of a boundary committee review of their areas. That seems wholly reasonable and appropriate. 
Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: When I am suggesting entirely reasonable things, the Minister has a way of shaking his head that does not suggest to me a reasonable person considering and carefully weighing up the argument that I have just advanced. If one did not know the Minister better one would suspect that he already had his answer in front of him before he had even heard what my argument was. I hope that he will give serious consideration to my point.
 Perhaps the Minister could reveal the estimate of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the costs to local authorities of complying with the requirement to have a boundary committee review of their area. Some of those will not be direct monetary costs and will be difficult to quantify. They will derive from the disruption to, and distraction from local authorities' other more important activities. It would be useful to know what the Minister thinks the cost will be. How does he think authorities are going to meet those costs, especially authorities such as my own, which last Wednesday was firmly reminded of the Government's priorities when it received only a floor increase? The Minister has a track record of quoting the views of my district council back at me. He will not get away with it this time because I can assure him that it is resolute, and there can be no ambiguity in an interpretation of its response to receiving a floor grant last Wednesday. 
 Mr. Butterfill, because you have indicated that we are not likely to have a clause stand part debate, I wonder if I could talk more widely about the group of amendments and raise a couple of other issues. In his exchanges with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, the Minister said several things about the resource implications of conducting a boundary committee review of all regions in England. As the Committee will be aware, we have tabled an amendment for later consideration that would involve a referendum in all regions. The Government require that that be preceded by a boundary committee review in all regions. I asked the Minister about the matter once today, and received no answer so I shall ask him again. 
 It is not clear what the Government's logic is in wishing to expend substantial resources conducting a detailed boundary committee review prior to a referendum. That would be a resource constraint and limit the availability of similar referendums on a 
 simultaneous date throughout the country, just so that the voters can know the outcome of the local government boundary review before they vote. However, they will know absolutely nothing about the substantive issue on which they are voting because the Government have not devoted parliamentary resources to passing regional assemblies legislation that would allow them to know the powers and scope of the regional assemblies for which they will be voting. 
 It will be a bizarre situation. The referendum voter will not be informed at all about the statutory framework in which the regional assembly will operate or what its powers and revenue-raising capabilities will be, but he will be informed in minute detail about the subsidiary consequences of a yes or no vote, namely, the detailed local government reorganisation in the area. That strikes me as very odd. One is bound to ask why the Government have devoted so many resources and so much effort to the subsidiary question but apparently are unwilling to devote any at all to the principal question.

Edward Davey: Although I agree with the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman makes, in many ways I am surprised that he makes it. The Government's approach would actually help him and his colleagues, who are likely to campaign against a regional assembly in any referendum. It provides an argument against setting up a regional assembly, in that one will not know what the powers are. The reason why we are critical of the Government on that same point is that we think that that approach might contribute to losing the referendum. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I are coming at this from very different perspectives.

Philip Hammond: I am not so sure that we are. Outside this Room, we are members of political parties who fight campaigns. Inside this Room, we are Members of Parliament who scrutinise legislation to ensure that it is proper and effective. We might not like the principles of what the Government are doing, but our job is to ensure that the Bill and the whole programme that the Government roll out are as watertight as possible, should they get on to the statute book.
 If we have to have referendums for regional assemblies, I would prefer that people knew for what they were voting. I object in principle to pre-legislative referendums that ask the public to vote for a pig in a poke. 
Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: The Minister shakes his head. Why then does he think that it is so important to have completed the local government review in detail before the referendum takes place? If voters are to buy a pig in a poke, they might as well buy two of them. I cannot see the logic of wanting the local government review all tidied up and out of the way with every ''t'' crossed and ''i'' dotted while leaving the bigger, more substantive issue open to interpretation and—dare I say it?—misinterpretation and misrepresentation by the protagonists in the argument.
 I would also like to draw the Minister on subsection (6)(b). I did not table an amendment to it because I 
 genuinely did not understand it. It appears to say that the Secretary of State may consider the impact of carrying out a review but cannot consider the impact of implementing it. A very odd mixture of abilities and disabilities has been placed on the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that. 
 Finally, on subsection (8), there is a question about the amount of time that the boundary committee will need to carry out a review. The Secretary of State can direct the boundary committee to start its review not later than a specified date, and he can also direct it to make its recommendations not later than a specified date. Clearly, there is an issue about whether the boundary committee will be allowed adequate time. 
 Can the Minister tell the Committee what discussions he has had with the boundary committee about the amount of time that will be required for reviews for each of the different regions that might be involved? Will he let the Committee into the secret regarding the amount of time that he expects to allow the boundary committee to carry out reviews? If the times are different for each region, perhaps the Minister would give the Committee some indication of them. 
 I look forward to the Minister's substantive response on amendment No. 17 and will be most grateful if he deals with the various other points that otherwise would have fallen in the clause stand part debate, if he is able.

Edward Davey: I support amendment No. 17. It is very sensible that local authorities that will presumably have to play a large part in contributing to a local government review for their region are compensated in some way. The Minister might say that that is a bit rich coming from the Liberal Democrats because we argue against ring fencing and ring-fenced grants. One of our criticisms of the local government finance settlement last week was that the Government simply redefined what they meant by a ring-fenced grant. Ring fencing is still very much with us. I will not take that argument much further because I am sure that that would be out of order. However, the Minister might be criticising the amendment because it would involve more ring-fenced grants. In this case, the ring fencing is a one-off for a specific purpose, so it would be appropriate.
 If the Government insist that local government reviews coincide with the preparations for regional referendums, local authorities must be compensated. By not compensating them, the Minister may be giving ammunition to opponents of regional democracy. It would be easy for people who want to support the no campaign to say, ''Look how much this is costing council tax payers.''

Kevan Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how one could compensate a body—for example, a district council—that has been abolished? Where would the money go?

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge tabled the amendment, but I presume that
 he means that the council would be awarded costs before it was abolished.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is being a bit disingenuous in attempting to get in on the act. The boundary committee review will take place over a period of time and the Secretary of State will then consider whether to hold a referendum. If he decides to hold one and if it produces a yes vote, he will consider whether to make an order setting up an elected regional assembly, which will take some time. There will be years between the beginning and the conclusion of the process.

Edward Davey: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman elaborated his argument and put it on the record. It is simple: costs will be awarded before abolition.

Kevan Jones: What will those costs be?

Edward Davey: Given that the Minister is unable to tell us anything about costs—perhaps he is going to, but it will be for the first time—I will not speculate on the costs of a hypothetical district council. We do not even know which councils would be considered in a review. Clearly there would be costs. The process will not be free: it will take up officials' time and someone will have to pay for that. Presumably that someone will be the council tax payer. If the Minister wants to persuade council tax payers to give at least a fair wind to a yes vote, it would be wiser not to impose extra costs on them.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman just said that there would be costs in terms of officials' time. I suspect that it might be more serious than that. Many local authorities faced with reorganisation proposals will want to instruct legal advisers and perhaps counsel to represent their interests in relation to the boundary committee's deliberations.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman may be right. I hope that prudent local authorities will not run up huge bills, either for the council tax payer or for the Minister's Department. I would not have thought that a spokesman for the Conservatives would advocate running up large legal costs—perhaps he has a few legal colleagues in mind.
 On the theme of winding up the debate on clause 12, I will mention several other issues raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I make it clear that the Liberal Democrats are against the way in which the Government are linking the referendum on regional assemblies to a local government review. We do not see the need for that link. The Government and, in this debate, the Minister have not advanced convincing arguments for the link. 
 Many people in local government, some of whom support local government restructuring and unitary authorities, do not agree with the way in which the Government have linked the review to the referendums. The Government are making a serious political mistake by taking something that is popular in some regions of the country and linking it with something that is possibly going to be unpopular. That is an unwise decision. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and I support amendment No. 17 and if the Minister will not allow it to be made today, as I suspect, I hope that he will at least reassure us of his intentions on the financing.

Nick Raynsford: We have heard cogent arguments from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Opposition Members that the Government should reimburse local authorities for the costs they incur as a result of their involvement in local government reviews. It is important for the Committee to understand how local authorities will be involved in the review process. First, they will, with every other person or body with an interest in the outcome of reviews, have an opportunity to make initial representations to the boundary committee. They will not be the only people making representations: individuals and organisations, including businesses, voluntary organisations and other groups, will want to do so. Is it really equitable to suggest that compensation should be paid to one group but not others? I do not honestly believe that that is a tenable proposition.
 Secondly, local authorities are then likely to be involved in discussions with the boundary committee as part of the process by which the committee formulates its draft recommendations. That is a normal activity, which I would expect any well-organised local authority to be able to do when it has defined its position and to be able to meet the costs incurred in those discussions from its normal budget. Nothing special is required unless, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly said, they run up large legal bills. I believe that he shares our view that a prudent council should not do that but should be able to handle such matters cost-effectively without running up large bills. 
 When the boundary committee has published draft recommendations, local authorities will have a further opportunity to make their views known to the committee. The process is very much the same as the one the boundary committee would adopt for structural boundary and electoral reviews under the Local Government Act 1992. There is no requirement in that Act for the Government to fund local authority costs arising from such reviews. Indeed, I must tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that no funding was made available either by the former Department of the Environment or the Conservative party when the Conservatives were in government and introduced the 1992 legislation and then imposed a more complex review process with more difficult questions and more uncertain outcomes than that which we are proposing.

Edward Davey: Just because a previous Conservative Government did something does not mean that a Labour Government should copy them. If it was a mistake then, I would not be surprised—I have not checked the record—if the Minister's predecessor or his party's spokesmen when that Bill was scrutinised made the point that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman and the Liberal Democrats are now making. I caution the right hon. Gentleman for
 putting his Government in the position of copying previous Conservative Governments.

Nick Raynsford: I made a strong and persuasive case for why it would not be appropriate. First, it would be partial to give compensation to one group of people making representations to the boundary committee and not others. Secondly, the costs involved need not be substantial. I went on to point out that it was somewhat rich of the Conservatives to urge a compensation framework when they did not offer anything of the same nature when they were in Government and were imposing much more onerous obligations on local authorities as a result of the way in which the review that they set up in the mid–1990s was conducted. I see no reason why special funding should be provided. The bulk of the work will be undertaken by the boundary committee. How much a local authority chooses to spend is a matter for the authority. It would be wrong for us as a Government to make a judgment on that.
 I deal now with the questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked why boundary committee resources should be spent on a review before a referendum? He partly answered his question by saying that it was right and proper that the electorate should be aware of what they were voting for. He went on to say that that was not persuasive however, because in his view they would see only one part of the picture—local government reorganisation—and would not have a proper picture of the powers and capabilities of elected regional assemblies. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that they will have a clear view of the powers, role and responsibilities of elected regional assemblies because they were spelled out in our White Paper and, as we debated on Tuesday this week, we will be able to provide factual information about precisely such issues to ensure that the electorate are properly informed. 
 There is a reasonable debate about whether it is better to have the overall legislation in advance of a referendum, or following it. In the cases of Scotland, Wales, London and now in the English regions, we have adopted an approach that means until we have a view from the nation or region on whether it wants us to legislate to give effect to devolution proposals spelled out in the White Papers, Parliament will rightly not spend a lot of time debating something that might not happen. If no one in a referendum is voting in favour of elected regional assemblies, the whole exercise of legislating will be pointless.

Philip Hammond: The Minister's logic applies equally to the setting up of the boundary committee to consider arrangements that would come into effect only after a referendum that might not happen or might not have the result that the Minister desires. Does he acknowledge that a White Paper is not an Act, and that it will likely be the next Parliament before substantive legislation creating a framework for the powers and authorities of elected regional assemblies can be introduced in Parliament? The Government will not therefore be in a position to make factual statements about what the powers of
 regional assemblies will be at the time of the referendum.

Nick Raynsford: It is pretty obvious that a White Paper is not the same as legislation. Most people are aware of that. However, the people of Scotland, Wales and London took well-informed decisions in a referendum on the basis of White Paper proposals that were then translated into legislation by the Government. If we work to the timetable that I outlined in my response to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) this morning and the first referendums are held in the autumn of 2004, there is no reason why legislation should not be passed during this Parliament—I am not saying that it will be. The argument that says that delaying legislation until the next Parliament invalidates the translation of a White Paper's proposals is not valid.

Philip Hammond: Is the Minister suggesting that people who voted in the Greater London referendum were conscious of the level of precepting that has since occurred? Does he not think that if the legislation had been introduced and the precepting was clear, the result would have been different?

Nick Raynsford: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman who is, with great style, undertaking his thankless task of opposing the Bill, but on this point he is making a serious mistake. He knows that the political outcome of an election for a newly created body will influence the way in which it operates. The argument that he was advancing earlier was not about what level the precept that Mayor Livingstone has chosen to impose should be, but about structure. The structure was spelled out in the White Paper and has informed the creation of the Greater London Authority. There is no question of the Government not translating the structure in the White Paper into the institution that exists.
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) rose—

Nick Raynsford: The consequences are the result of a subsequent election at which the people of London—misguidedly—voted for Mr. Livingstone as Mayor. They are now seeing, and in many cases regretting, the consequences. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Adrian Flook: The Minister has answered my question.

Nick Raynsford: I am delighted that I anticipated the hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it. At least we are making some progress.
 The next question that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked concerned the provisions in subsection (6)(b) as to why the Secretary of State must ignore any effects of the implementation of recommendations. The reason is that the Secretary of State will be unable to know the consequences of implementation because that will be a matter to be determined by the boundary committee, and it would be wrong for there to be speculation about the consequences of implementation before the boundary committee has made its recommendations. The boundary committee will be invited to consider the structure of local government in one or more 
 regions and to come up with proposals. In inviting the boundary committee to do that, the Secretary of State will have regard first to the degree of interest in having a referendum in that region and, possibly, secondly, to the factors in subsection (5). But the question of what might be the implications of the implementation of any particular formulation that the boundary committee might recommend is something that it would be inappropriate to take into account in reaching that decision.

Philip Hammond: Drawing on the Minister's argument about the White Paper giving people an adequate guide to what an elected regional assembly would be like, I suggest to him that it would not be speculation, because it is clear that the boundary committee will be constrained by direction of the Secretary of State to come up with an all-unitary solution. It is not speculation that would inform that question, but an absolute certainty that it will be an all-unitary solution.

Nick Raynsford: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it will be an all-unitary solution, but that solution could be fundamentally different. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham pointed out that in the case of his county, proposals were made under the Banham review for a wholly unitary structure of the county of Durham. The creation of, say, two or three separate unitary authorities within the county would be a very different outcome. There is no way that the Secretary of State can know in advance what the boundary committee will recommend, so it is right that he should not be invited to form a view on something of which he will have no proper knowledge. That is the reason for subsection (6)(b).
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked for further elucidation regarding the Government's discussions with the boundary committee. We have had preliminary discussions with the committee to clarify our proposals on timetables and our wish for them to be able, if necessary, to conduct more than one boundary review simultaneously. The committee has expressed views to us about resources—an issue that we have already debated—but we have made it clear that the Government have taken no view about the number of reviews that it may be invited to undertake, and that we cannot do so until we have seen the response from the process of soundings that we are initiating. 
 The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton commented on the local government settlement—rather a good settlement, I have to say, for his authority, and not a bad one for Elmbridge, Runnymede and Surrey councils either. But of course we hear that 4.6 per cent. settlements are regarded as unsatisfactory. That is the settlement for Surrey county council. For Kingston, if I recall correctly, it is more than 4 per cent.

Edward Davey: The Minister is right to suggest that we are pleased that he looked at a map and decided that Kingston should not be in east London, but in west London with Sutton and Merton. That benefited the royal borough of Kingston. We were grateful for that, and hope that he will not change his mind between the
 provisional and the final settlements. However, 4.1 per cent. remains an eye-wateringly tight settlement for my constituents.

John Butterfill: Order. I am afraid that I cannot allow the Committee to degenerate into arguments about the benefits or otherwise of the local government settlement, especially as I have fairly strong views about my own.

Nick Raynsford: I certainly shall not invite your ire by continuing on that theme, Mr. Butterfill.
 The hon. Gentleman went on to make some remarks about ring-fencing. Obviously, I cannot refer to that either, other than to stress that the Government have made a commitment to reduce ring-fencing. I will discuss with him separately the definitional issues that he raised. 
 The hon. Gentleman again pressed the Liberal Democrat view that there should not be a link between a structural review of local government and the establishment of elected regional assemblies. We have to differ on that. We believe that the creation of an additional tier of government below national Government, to give three tiers apart from parish councils, is quite superfluous. It would be one layer too many. We believe that there should be rationalisation and that two tiers of government are enough. That applies in Scotland, Wales and London and should equally apply in all the English regions.

Edward Davey: I hear what the Minister says, but why will he not leave that choice to the people?

Nick Raynsford: Unlike the previous Conservative Government, which imposed reviews without any opportunity for referendums, we are allowing the people of each region to take a decision and give us their verdict on this issue in the full knowledge of the consequences of local government reorganisation. They will be able to give us their view, fully informed.

Matthew Green: Does the Minister not see that in an area where a large proportion of the population currently lives under unitary or metropolitan authorities and only a smaller proportion lives under two-tier councils, even if there is a substantial no vote in the areas with two-tier councils—let us bear in mind the fact that we are in favour—the majority of people, who live in the urban, metropolitan and unitary councils, will take the decision about what council to have for the people of other areas? It will not be left to local choice at all.

Nick Raynsford: It is very much a question of choice within the region of whether to have an elected regional assembly. If one believes, as we firmly do, that three tiers of sub-national government is one tier too many and that it is right to have only two, the two have to go together. It is simply untenable to argue, as the Liberal Democrats always do, that we should have a proliferation of tiers of government—more and more talking shops, more and more opportunities for consultation, and no action.
 We believe in streamlined bodies and structures able to deliver for the people. I urge the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge— 
Mr. Jones rose—

Nick Raynsford: No, I shall not do that, because my hon. Friend wants to intervene.

Kevan Jones: I wonder if my right hon. Friend is looking forward to the Liberal Democrat ''Focus'', as I am, which will be arguing for an extra tier of government and more councillors?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point, and on that very point I invite the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: We have heard a tirade from the Minister against extra tiers of government; but in existing unitary areas, he will be doubling the number of tiers of government if he gets his elected regional assemblies.
Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says no, but in those areas there is currently one tier, and the proposal is to introduce another. That looks to me like a doubling of the number of tiers of government in between central Government and parish councils in current unitary areas. If my mathematics has failed me, no doubt the Minister will intervene.

Edward Davey: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that we already have regional government in this country? This debate is about democratising that regional government.

Philip Hammond: One of the principal arguments that I have been advancing is that the Government's White Paper is misleading in its title ''Your Region, Your Choice''. The Government are intent on imposing more administrative regional government, without any choice for or consultation of people in the English regions. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which we shall be debating next week, is a fine example of the Government's determination to move further in that direction.
 I was not entirely satisfied with the Minister's explanations on the peripheral issues that would have been raised in clause stand part. For the record, I should say that the boroughs of Runnymede and Elmbridge are far from satisfied with receiving grant increases at the floor level set for district authorities. That will cause considerable problems in the future. 
 On the substantive point of the debate—amendment No. 17—I have not heard a persuasive argument from the Minister on why central Government should not reimburse the costs that local authorities will incur. I do not want to promote increasing legalism in our governmental system, but frankly the Minister has got his head stuck firmly in the clouds if he does not take into account the likelihood that local authorities faced with abolition and reorganisation into different units will take legal advice in putting their arguments to the boundary commission. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the Committee how many local authorities affected by the last local government commission review were externally legally represented in their dealings with the 
 boundary committee. I suspect that a considerable number of them will have been. I am prepared to predict that whatever that number was, it will increase in the future because unfortunately that is the way the world is going, which means that considerable costs will be incurred. 
 I cannot accept the Minister's contention that local authorities faced with abolition and reorganisation are but one of many organisations that may want to make representations in a region and that supporting their costs would therefore be unfair to other bodies that want to make representations. It seems to me that the local authorities will be, in a sense, the defendants in the dock and not merely one of the witnesses. Many of those authorities will see themselves as fighting for their survival, particularly in areas in which there is an active controversy. The Minister gave the county of Durham as an example of an active controversy between a unitary county and smaller unitary districts within it. 
 Substantial legal expenditure is bound to be incurred. If the Minister expects any—these are his words—well-organised local authority to be able to absorb those costs within its existing budgets, he has no conception of the extent to which he has squeezed the blood out of local authorities up and down the country with his settlement.

Nick Raynsford: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to say that we have squeezed the blood out of local government funding to the tune of a 25 per cent. real-terms increase, while his party managed to shower largesse in the form of a 7 per cent. real-terms reduction. That is the contrast between the parties.

Philip Hammond: My error was talking about having squeezed the blood up and down the country, when, as the Minister says, the truth is that he has distributed considerable additional largesse, but he has not done so evenly. I can assure him that many local authorities—the district councils in my constituency are two of them—are finding life extremely difficult.

John Butterfill: Order. We are in danger once again of straying fairly wide of the particular amendment under consideration.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. That may be so, but we were enjoying ourselves enormously.
 It is perhaps a bit unfair to expect the Minister to have this information to hand, but I should be interested if he were able to write to members of the Committee and indicate the extent to which external legal advice has been used in the conduct of boundary committees. Local government is extremely hard pressed, and if he is going to impose yet another costly burden on it, he will have to pay for it. I must insist on pressing the amendment to a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Local government review: supplementary

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 13, page 7, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 'the appropriate boundaries for the introduction of Unitary local authorities within the region'.

John Butterfill: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment No. 47, in
clause 13, page 7, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(c) whether any boundary changes should be made to the region in connection with or to facilitate the carrying out of the structural change'.
 Amendment No. 48, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
 Amendment No. 51, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).

Philip Hammond: Amendment No. 21 is about plain speaking—calling a spade a spade, as they say in the north, I believe. Clause 13 states:
''A local government review is a review to consider . . . what structural change is most appropriate for the region . . . whether any boundary changes should be made in the region in connection with or to facilitate the carrying out of the structural change.''
 However, we know, because the Minister has told us apart from anything else, that the provision is not about that at all. It is about finding a unitary local government solution for the region, but nowhere does the Bill say that the boundary committee will be constrained to consider only wholly unitary solutions. The amendment would simply replace the obfuscation of subsection (3)(a) and (b) with 
''the appropriate boundaries for the introduction of Unitary local authorities within the region''.
 The amendment has not been grouped with another that addresses the question of possible amalgamation with existing unitary authorities, so I shall not debate that now, but the two issues go hand in hand. This amendment simply deals with blatantly misleading language in the Bill. It is blatantly misleading because the Government have made their intentions abundantly clear. They will constrain the boundary committee's flexibility by virtue of subsection (8)(e) and the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue and to which it will be obliged to have regard. 
 I should like the Bill to say what we all know is the case, rather than simply building in through subsection (8)(e) the guiding hand of Whitehall, on which the Government seem to place such reliance. It is never 
 accountable but always present. Let us have it in the Bill, so that we can see what the Government are really proposing. 
 Ministers are determined to achieve the precise opposite of what is in the Bill. They are not looking for a review to consider what structural change is most important, and whether any boundary changes should be made. They are determined that structural change will occur whether or not it is in the best interests of the region, and that boundary changes will be made. The Minister has told us that, so let us have it in the Bill, and let everyone understand what this is all about.

Matthew Green: I shall skirt past the Conservatives' amendment, which once again is really about the English language. Although my degree covers that, I shall go on to the more substantive amendments.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood. The amendment has nothing to do with the English language. It would make it explicit that the boundary committee will be allowed to consider only all-unitary solutions.

Matthew Green: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not trying to cast aspersions. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 51, which deal with a point touched on before: the boundaries of regions. The amendments would enable the boundary committee to consider that issue, and if the Committee will allow me, I will elucidate some of the reasons for that.
 The Bill is designed to serve all of the United Kingdom. If we were dealing simply with a Bill to establish an assembly in the north-east where boundaries are not the source of such contention—

Graham Stringer: Oh, they are.

Matthew Green: That makes my point even stronger. The boundaries of a region are contentious, and the issue may well cost the Government victory in some of the referendums. In my region, people in Shropshire, Hereford and Worcestershire do not feel comfortable with the idea of being part of a west midlands region. They would far rather be grouped with Gloucestershire and the Forest of Dean in a region that would comprise about 1.7 million people. That region would be of a similar size to the north-east, and would be structurally sound. At least one Conservative MP from the area has said that he would find such a region difficult to oppose—support for it might be larger than we think. For the sake of his own internal party position, I shall not name the MP.
 I turn to the case of Cornwall and the south-west as a whole. The region stretches from the Isles of Scilly at the tip of Cornwall, which is why there is a clause about the Scilly isles, to the top of Gloucestershire. People find little coherence in that, and have trouble believing that they belong to such a region. They would want different divisions. We have heard several times about the south-east, where people do not believe the current Government regions represent the people of the south-east sufficiently well. Several areas of the country—I could carry on all day about this—
 would rather see themselves in an adjoining region, or a new one. 
 Why do people have those concerns? Their concerns extend beyond government. The longer-term worry of one of the senior police officers in West Mercia is that the police authorities will merge into regional police authorities. The West Mercia force would probably quite happily merge with Gloucestershire police, which operates in a largely rural area. However, there would be great disquiet in those regions if West Mercia police merged with the West Midlands police. Those are people's concerns. They do not see the process as a one-off. We see it as a rather timid step on the Government's part before they pull powers from this place to the regions where they rightfully belong. Several people fear that once the regions are set up, power will move up to the region from their area. Therefore, regional boundaries matter.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting case. How far is he willing to take his argument in terms of the number of regions that we might end up with? Does he anticipate our ending up with the same number of regions as we currently have counties?

Matthew Green: I do not think that it is up to me.

Gary Streeter: Think it through.

Matthew Green: No, it is not up to me. It would be up to a boundary committee to make such recommendations. After all, there has never been a boundary committee to consider the boundaries of regions. We like to tease the Conservatives about setting the shape of the regions, but the Conservative Government set up administrative regions for internal governmental administrative purposes. They were not set up so that people would see themselves as part of a region. We do not know how many regions the boundary committee might propose, and I do not wish to prejudge its work. Far too much prejudging of the boundary committee's work is taking place at present.
 Overall, the amendments are designed to bring back some common sense to the setting of regional boundaries. They would enable people to feel more closely attached to the region in which they live and therefore more likely to support it. Liberal Democrats share the Government's hope that people will vote yes in regional referendums and support regional governments. We want that to happen, but the Government are piling up obstacles to winning referendums. The Government ought to recognise that they will enhance their prospect of winning referendums by allowing the boundaries issue to be addressed. It is not just a case of winning in the north-east, then stopping. 
Mr. Jones indicated assent.

Matthew Green: The hon. Member for North Durham is nodding, but he would quite happily stop at dealing with the north-east. I want my constituency to be included in a regional government, but I do not necessarily want it to be part of a west midlands region. Hon. Members from various areas will have views on that.
 I hope that the Minister takes the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended. They are meant to help the Minister to achieve the aims that we share.

Nick Raynsford: I have great admiration for the way in which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has shouldered the entire Opposition burden and moved every amendment. That is most impressive, but the pressure is beginning to get to him. If he had been able to do the necessary research for the amendment, he would have avoided proposing an inappropriate and unsatisfactory amendment. I hope that he will recognise why that is once I have explained the clause.
 Let me first explain the precise provisions of the clause and how they interrelate with the Local Government Act 1992, because that is the crucial point that the hon. Gentleman has perhaps not fully appreciated. Clause 13 provides for a local government review to recommend a wholly unitary structure for those parts of a region that currently have both county and district councils. It does so by providing in clause 13(3) that a local government review is to consider 
''what structural change is most appropriate for the region'',
 together with any boundary changes that 
''should be made in the region in connection with or to facilitate the carrying out of the structural change.''
 I emphasise ''structural change''. The definitions of structural and boundary change are set out in the 1992 Act and apply for the purposes of the Bill by virtue of clause 14, which we will come to in a moment. 
 A structural change is defined as the replacement, in a non-metropolitan area, of two-tier local government by a single tier. Hence, clause 13 ensures that a review must consider the setting up of unitary authorities in place of two-tier authorities. The hon. Gentleman's fear that we were not giving effect to our stated objective of requiring the creation of a wholly unitary structure is unfounded, but I understand that without the required cross-referencing with the 1992 Act he would not appreciate that.

Philip Hammond: Does the Minister concede that if I did not do the necessary cross-referencing, it is perfectly conceivable that others outside the House will not? The pursuit of clarity might make it preferable to put in the Bill what is being done rather than to require anyone reading the Bill, or the Act as it will be, to make numerous cross-references to other legislation.

Nick Raynsford: I will not hold it against the hon. Gentleman that he was not familiar with the legislation that his party passed when in government, but I say to him that when I have given this statement to the Committee, it will be absolutely clear that this provision will have its intended effect by virtue of that cross-reference to the 1992 Act. That is the proper way in which to legislate, rather than repeating unnecessarily provisions already established in statute.
 Clause 13(8) requires the boundary committee to recommend change to a single-tier structure in areas where there are two-tier authorities. It will do so by 
 requiring structural change to the areas of relevant local authorities, which, under subsection (4), will be the two-tier authority areas. The boundary changes permitted under subsection (3) will mean that in recommending the pattern of unitary authorities, the boundary committee can propose such changes to the boundaries of two-tier authorities as it thinks desirable, within the limitations imposed by subsection (5) that it does not change the boundaries of existing unitary authorities or the boundaries of the region. I shall come on to that under amendment No. 47. 
 The committee could, for example, use existing county boundaries as the basis of the new unitary authorities, use existing district boundaries, or recommend unitaries based on combinations of districts, parts of districts or anything else in the two-tier area. I apologise for that explanation being rather lengthy, but it is important that the Committee is absolutely clear about how clause 13 works. 
 Turning to the downside of amendment No. 21, not only is it unnecessary, but it would have the entirely unsatisfactory and negative consequence of explicitly preventing the boundary committee from examining structural change. Reviews would be able to consider and recommend only changes to the boundaries of two-tier authorities. As a result, the Government could implement only those boundary changes. We could not introduce wholly unitary local government before requesting the Electoral Commission, under the terms of the 1992 Act, to make recommendations on structural change, and going through the review process again. There is a distinct definitional difference between a boundary review and a structural review. That is where the connection with the previous legislation is so important. Quite apart from the expense, time and disruption that such a two-stage process would entail, the amendment would completely frustrate our aim of quickly introducing unitary authorities to streamline government in regions where there is to be an elected regional assembly. 
 Amendment No. 47 would require the boundary committee, as part of the review of local government in a region, to consider whether any changes should be made to the region's boundaries. The Government do not agree that the boundary committee should be asked to look at regional boundaries. That would undoubtedly open up a hornet's nest and delay considerably the implementation of our proposals. I understand exactly why the Liberal Democrats have proposed that, because for them, life is a constant delightful round of consultation and debate, but no action. We believe in getting results and achieving outcomes, and we want to do so expeditiously.

Matthew Green: The Minister reminds me of a comment about consultation made by a Labour councillor in Shropshire some years ago. He asked—in public—how on earth they could consult when they had not yet decided what they were going to do.

Nick Raynsford: I have no brief on the particular councillor to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have enough examples of Liberal Democrats who will
 consult about anything, whether it makes sense or not, just to enjoy the process of consultation.

Gary Streeter: Talking shops.

Nick Raynsford: Talking shops are indeed the symbol of the Liberal Democrat party. It enjoys debate, but is not very good at doing things. We are interested in getting results.
 We propose that boundaries for elected regional assemblies should mirror the existing administrative boundaries used by Government offices, regional development agencies and other parts of central Government. Since a key aim of elected regional assemblies is to draw together the work of such regional bodies, it will make sense if they operate to the same geographical boundaries. We believe that those regions reflect a logic in terms of population, geography, economic weight and, in many cases, cultural identity.

Philip Hammond: What logic is there, in terms of economic weight, in the treatment of the south-east region, with a population of 6.5 million and a GDP of £15,000 per capita, and of the north-east region, with a population of less than 2 million and a GDP of about £10,000 per capita? There is no equivalence of economic weight.

Nick Raynsford: No. I fully accept that, as I said earlier. There are differences, but the north-east has a cultural identity that makes it appropriate for people in the region to feel a strong attachment to it. One of our objectives is to help the region, which has a strong cultural and regional identity, by ensuring that it uses the institutions that we are proposing to improve its economic performance and to close the economic gap with other regions.

Graham Stringer: I thoroughly approve of the amendment because it is effectively a wrecking amendment. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, in its considerations before the 1987 and 1992 elections, the Labour party never settled on the current boundaries for the regions, which are the product of the mind of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)? We never thought that they were good boundaries.

Nick Raynsford: I readily accept my hon. Friend's proposition that the previous Government put the present boundaries in place, but I would argue that there is a strong logic and coherence to the north-east region, as I described. Individual hon. Members may debate whether Cumbria, or part of it, should be part of the north-east or the north-west region. However, if we opened up such debates, however, they would be mirrored by debates about the relevance of certain parts of the north-west region to the west midlands region, about the relevance of the boundaries around Gloucester to the south-west region, and about the boundaries of the south-east. As I have said in previous sittings, we would have long, unproductive arguments about boundaries, which are incredibly controversial, without getting on with creating elected regional assemblies.

Kevan Jones: Does the Minister agree that the boundaries of the regions are not brick walls? A north-east or a north-west assembly will co-operate on a host of issues, and certainly on economic development. There will, I hasten to add, also be co-operation with the Scottish Executive.

Nick Raynsford: I agree wholeheartedly. When the Conservative party was in government in the 1960s, it created the boundaries of Greater London, in the region that I represent, amid great controversy. We have worked with and accepted those boundaries and we now get on with the business of governing in London within them, but we recognise that there is a need for co-operation across boundaries. In the Thames gateway area, for example, there is a close relationship between the part of the gateway that lies in London and the part that lies in the eastern and south-eastern regions.

Edward Davey: Would the Government be minded, in any future Bill to establish the powers and functions of regional assemblies, to give adjacent regional assemblies the power to agree to change their boundaries? On the other hand, does he intend the Bill and future legislation on powers and functions to set regional boundaries in stone for ever? Will there ever be any flexibility in the Government's thinking on the issue?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the White Paper carefully, and I advise him to do so. He will then see that we are committed to proceeding on the basis of the existing Government office regions. For the pragmatic reasons that I outlined, we want expeditious progress, not endless debates and delays while we quibble about boundaries. Nevertheless, we do not rule out the possibility that there might be adjustments in future, because that is a sensible and pragmatic way to proceed.

Matthew Green: The Minister has the advantage of having a copy of the White Paper in front of him. My recollection is that those adjustments can only take place within a region—they cannot take place across regions. So once, for instance, Gloucestershire is in the south-west and west Mercia is in the Midlands, we cannot merge those two to form another region.

Nick Raynsford: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman by reading the relevant section of the White Paper, which is paragraph 6.5. After setting out the argument that a prolonged debate over the composition of individual regions is likely to generate a good deal of fervour with no obvious prospect of boundaries that are no more widely acceptable or practicable—a very sensible observation—we say:
''The Government has not completely ruled out in the longer term the possibility of adopting boundaries for regional assemblies that do not follow the existing boundaries. For instance, a future government may, at some stage, want to change Government Office or Regional Development Agency boundaries for reasons not directly connected to elected regional assemblies. In those circumstances, it would clearly be necessary to keep actual or prospective regional assembly boundaries in line. We therefore intend to build on the existing mechanism for changing Regional Development Agency boundaries, so that in exceptional circumstances in the longer term regional assembly boundaries could be altered.''
 There is the evidence that we are flexible, we do allow that possibility and we are not locking people into a straitjacket in terms of existing boundaries—but we are pragmatic: we want to get on with the job and we want to work on the building blocks that are already in place.

Edward Davey: The Minister reads from the White Paper, but I asked him about the Bill that might stipulate future powers and functions. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has said previously, there is a big difference between a Bill and a White Paper. Will the Minister give the Committee an undertaking that in a future Bill, regional assemblies will be given powers to work together to adjust their boundaries? The section that the Minister read out fills one with dread. He read out the phrase ''not completely ruled out'' and suggested that changes might come if the Government changed their own administrative boundaries without any reference to the regional assemblies or the people involved. I hope that, in replying to this rather long intervention, the Minister can give the Committee more reassurance.

Nick Raynsford: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants, because he wants an assurance that he can live in a Liberal Democrat Valhalla or paradise in which there is constant debate about changing boundaries and changing structures and constant consultation but never, never any result for which his party would have to take responsibility. We have no intention of creating that never-never land where only Liberal Democrats would wish to dwell.

John Butterfill: Order. We are beginning to go wide. I appreciate that there is reference to boundaries, but we are beginning to discuss what might be the content of future legislation. We are considering the legislation that is in front of us. Further speculation would not be in order.

Nick Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Butterfill. I shall return immediately to the legislation and shall not follow the Liberal Democrats in flights of fancy.
 Turning to amendments Nos. 48 and 51, we believe that it is right to restrict change to two-tier authorities and to exclude existing unitary authorities from any review. Reorganisation will not be a painless experience for the authorities involved, but I believe that it is a price worth paying in order to streamline arrangements and to create an effective working relationship between regional and local government. In order to minimise the effect of the reorganisation, it is sensible not to disrupt those authorities in a region that already operate along unitary lines.

Matthew Green: The Minister has not addressed the point that he desires to win some referendums. Does he not realise that if boundaries are more in tune with areas that people believe that they belong to, they are more likely to vote yes? Does he not accept that, even though we might argue about the precise extent, the premise is valid to at least some extent?

Nick Raynsford: If the issue of boundaries were to be opened up, we would face the prospect of a long and
 unproductive debate and there would be no guarantee that the outcome would be any more acceptable to the majority of people in a region than the existing boundaries. The existing boundaries are familiar. They may not be perfect, but they are well known. They are already used for regional purposes and they are the necessary building blocks that we should use to progress towards elected regional assemblies.

Matthew Green: We will probably return to the issue. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Butterfill: Order. It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. His amendments have been spoken to, but have not been proposed. I was merely giving him the opportunity to indicate whether he might wish to press for them to be the subject of a separate division.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Member for Ludlow may get an opportunity sooner than he thinks. If he looks carefully at the next group of amendments, he will see that some of the same issues are certain to arise again. This has been a very interesting debate, if a little wide at times.
 The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has let the cat out of the bag. The focus of the debate has been on the north, the north-east and Yorkshire. His intervention got the Minister to set out—more clearly than I have ever heard him do so before—that he recognises that regions in the south-east and the east present problems in terms of their logic, unwieldiness and lack of appeal to the intuition or emotions of their inhabitants. Ministers do not care about the situation in the south-east and east of England because they think that the debate is essentially about the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside. The Minister made glowing references to the sense of community and region in the north-east, but he will not have convinced the his hon. Friend or any Opposition Members that the proposal is genuinely for the whole of England. 
 I did not speak to the Liberal Democrat amendment earlier. Perhaps I should have done, although we may have an opportunity to explore the same issues in the next group. The Minister made the rather bold assertion that it would be folly to revisit the settled boundaries of the existing unitary authorities and that the boundaries of those authorities must be inviolate when the two-tier areas are carved up into unitaries. That is an obvious recipe for sub-optimal outcomes. 
 There is no logic in assuming that if a wholly unitary solution for a region had been considered from the outset, the boundaries of the existing unitary authorities would have been set as they are. If the existing unitary authorities have to sit without any amendment to their boundaries, there will be a danger of doughnutting. In pepper-potted counties, in which unitaries are dotted around in otherwise two-tier areas, there are considerable geographical constraints on the possibilities to create unitaries. We will come back to this. The Minister will have to address the problem a bit more seriously than simply dismissing it as 
 something that would cause unacceptable delay. It will leave us with a sub-optimal, all-unitary solution. That is an objective observation. 
 The Minister shot amendment No. 21 down in a barrage of obscure cross-referencing. I have not been able here in Committee to follow the chain of his argument precisely. I am sure that what he says has a good basis in fact. I will look at it carefully when I have the opportunity. I am still puzzled by the Minister's reference to our amendment as defective because it would exclude structural change, as opposed to boundary changes. Can he clarify that? If the Secretary of State is to prescribe in a region a wholly unitary solution, what else is there for the boundary committee to look at other than the boundaries of those wholly unitary authorities? What is the structural change that the Minister is talking about that is different from defining the boundaries of those authorities?

Nick Raynsford: As I explained, the problem lies in the difference between this amendment and the 1992 legislation. Because structural change is defined in a particular way, to remove the reference to structural change and insert ''boundaries'', even if there is a consequent reference to the introduction of unitary authorities, would not allow the boundary committee to undertake the structural review that is needed to combine the functions of two tiers of government. A subsequent review would therefore be needed to undertake the structural review that could not be undertaken in the boundary review that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would permit.

Philip Hammond: I will be interested to see what that looks like in print. I am still not quite sure that I have understood what the structural review consists of. Once the decision to create a unitary authority has been taken, clearly it will subsume the functions of both the upper and lower-tier authorities in that area.

Nick Raynsford: Unfortunately, it could not. The amendment would simply empower the boundary committee to conduct a boundary review, which would then pave the way for the introduction of unitary local authorities. It would not enable it to conduct the structural review necessary to create those unitary authorities, which is why a second review will be necessary. This is of course nonsense. I know that it is not the hon. Member's intention, but that would be the constitutional effect of the amendment.

Gary Streeter: A technical deficiency.

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend says, if it is a deficiency, it is a technical one. I also would have thought—and I will attack this in later amendments—that the powers of the Secretary of State in clause 15 to implement a boundary committee review, with or without modifications, would give him enough scope to deal with the issue that the Minister addresses.

Nick Raynsford: Again, there is case law relating to modifications. The implication of modification is a relatively minor adjustment, for example to an element of a boundary. It certainly would not give the Secretary of State power to conduct the fundamental
 transfer of functions, which is implicit in a structural review, the absence of which makes the hon. Gentleman's amendment unsatisfactory.

Philip Hammond: The Minister might be bluffing, but if so he does it very well. I do not have the resources available to conduct a review of the 1992 Act and to understand fully what he is saying. I will have to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I feel that we have been defeated on a technicality. There is something deeply unsatisfactory about a Bill that says that the local government review is for the purpose of doing x and y, subject to any direction by the Minister, when it is clear that his direction will not allow the boundary committee to do what the ordinary reader's interpretation of x and y would require. That makes legislation obscure and inaccessible, and we should not support it. I shall have to go away, wrap a towel around my head, and read the 1992 Act. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in
clause 13, page 7, line 4, leave out from 'are' to end of line 5 and insert 'all county and district councils within the region'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 49, in
clause 13, page 7, line 4, after 'the', insert 'unitary authority,'.

Philip Hammond: The amendment seeks to remove
''county council and district council for any area in the region in relation to which both councils have functions''
 and to substitute ''all county and district councils within the region''. This relates to the debate on the previous clause, in that the wording is intended to mean that the review would include the unitary districts in that area. I have already made the point that it is inevitable that there will be a sub-optimal boundary outcome if the islands of existing unitary authorities must be considered inviolable when creating around them what may be the rather bizarrely shaped unitary authorities, and when carving out that part of the region that is, apparently, a two-tier Government. 
 Amendment No. 49, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would achieve the same objective. It is not my place or role to have to say so, but the amendment is defective, as it inserts the term ''unitary authority'' alongside ''county council and district council'', but leaves the rest of the clause, which refers to ''both councils'' having functions, unchanged. The clause therefore would become meaningless. However, we are on the same page with regard to the substantive intended effect, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats will support amendment No. 77.

Edward Davey: Whether or not our amendment is technically deficient—I am sure that the Minister will find that it is in some way—I support the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Government are unnecessarily restricting local government reviews. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that some unitary authorities might want to change their shape and the areas that they cover. I was prompted to table the
 amendment because it would make more sense for people in certain communities if their district council were added to the neighbouring unitary authority, rather than having a review in which they have to link into a different upper-tier authority.
 We are approaching the same argument from a slightly different perspective. The Government are unnecessarily restricting the boundary committee for England in the sorts of review that it can undertake. The Government are motivated by wanting to rush the Bill through Parliament. They do not want to allow a more sensible, rational debate about the boundaries for local government reviews, but that is making it more difficult for them to win the overall argument. 
 It will seem odd to local people that local government reviews are being debated at the same time as regional referendums are being prepared for, when those local government reviews cannot take into account those things that local people know should be taken into account. It will make total sense for people to be part of the unitary authority next door for certain services that councils deliver, and they will say so. They may form more natural communities that people can identify, perhaps even more than in the current structures. 
 I tabled the amendment in the spirit of trying to help the Government ensure that the local government review is a firmer, longer-lasting and more sustainable review that will produce sensible government.

Philip Hammond: Just to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has postulated: although we would prefer this not to be happening, if it must, let us do it properly so that we do not get a sub-optimal outcome.

Edward Davey: Absolutely. The Government would not only achieve an optimal outcome from taking our approach, but win the substantive argument. They would create more sensible local government structures, which are the prize of the reviews, and receive more support in the referendums.

Gary Streeter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as people are so sick of local government boundary reviews and structural reviews, and as no one will want to review local government again for a few years, it is crazy to pass up the opportunity of doing so properly now? I agree that in some parts of the country a different kind of merger would be better. If the Government were to listen to that point only, which would not necessarily take much time, it would guarantee a supra-optimal outcome.

Edward Davey: If I were to go down that line, we could be in danger of trying your patience, Mr. Butterfill.
 There are two ways of including unitary authorities in the local government review. They could be included—as I think the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was suggesting—in the widest possible way by allowing them to be broken up and tagged on to others in order to create new ones. Alternatively, legislation could be written so that only one type of review were allowed for unitaries, which is what I suggest. Some district councils could be added 
 on to existing unitaries, which would avoid all the consultation and delays about which the Minister appears to be worried. That would produce more sensible and rational local government.

Nick Raynsford: I shall not linger describing the technical deficiency of the amendment, but give the hon. Gentleman a brief feel for it. He will be aware that it inserts the words ''unitary authority'' in subsection (4), which refers to
''the county council and district council for any area in the region in relation to which both councils have functions.''
 Clearly, that cannot cover a unitary authority, so the amendment is technically defective. 
 I know that the purpose of the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Runnymede and—

Philip Hammond: Not Redbridge.

Nick Raynsford: Not yet. Perhaps one day it will be Redbridge.
 The purpose of the amendments is to make it possible for the review to encompass existing unitary authorities. We do not believe that that is right. We accept that the outcome may be—in the words of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—sub-optimal, but we believe that it will minimise the disruption that would otherwise occur. 
 A process of reviews is not without difficulty. It is sobering to remember what happened during the Banham experience. Let me remind hon. Members of the consequences in one or two areas of the country. I shall start alphabetically with Bedfordshire. Banham recommended three unitary authorities for it, but that was not agreed and it ended up with one unitary authority, Luton, with the remaining part of the county becoming two-tier. In Buckinghamshire, the Banham recommendation was for four unitary authorities—Milton Keynes, Aylesbury Vale, Wickham and South Buckinghamshire—but that was not agreed and the outcome was one unitary authority for Milton Keynes with the rest of the area becoming two-tier. 
 In Cambridgeshire, Banham recommended no change, but the Government did not agree. Further reviews were directed, which recommended that Peterborough should become unitary. We ended up with one unitary authority, Peterborough, and the remaining authorities became two-tier. 
 I could go on, but that sad saga was repeated throughout the country. It meant that a disproportionate amount of time, energy and money was spent unproductively on reviews that were not implemented or that were subsequently altered.

Philip Hammond: Does not the catalogue that the Minister has just recited indicate that there was clearly no appetite for unitary structures along those lines in those areas? He now proposes to impose them in any area that votes for elected regional assemblies.

Nick Raynsford: No. The evidence suggests that although the Government had an appetite for unitary authorities, there was such confusion and jockeying
 for position that the whole process ended up with the unsatisfactory outcome in many areas that we see today; and we have no wish to reopen such a Pandora's box.
 Our priority is to minimise the impact of reorganisation and to recognise the fact that many of the unitary authorities that came about have been in existence for only a relatively short time. It is right that they should have more time to develop their skills and relationships and fully to settle into their new role and the responsibility to deliver high quality services to the local residents. 
 That is the Government's overriding priority. We do not want to open up an opportunity for endless debate about boundaries and the possible reorganisation of boundaries, but to go pragmatically and sensibly forward so that in those regions where people want an elected regional assembly we can move quickly to a streamlined framework, where there will be only one unitary tier of local government beneath the regional tier. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has singularly failed. He made various sensible arguments—no one would disagree with them—about the downside of reopening the boundaries of the existing unitaries, but he has not addressed the principle concern expressed by Opposition Members, which is that to treat them as inviolable islands in a sea of two-tier areas is to invite the production of a sub-optimal solution, which will then be fixed in stone for the future. That would be unfortunate.
 As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton observed, however, all that I am trying to do with the amendment is to help the Government avoid falling into a trap of their own making. They insist on going down that route at a speed that does not allow the possibility of reviewing the situation where a unitary is an obstacle to the sensible unitarisation of a whole county or region. However, I am fed up with trying to help the Government, Mr. Butterfill, and getting no thanks for it, so I am not going to do it any more. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in
clause 13, page 7, line 15, after 'must', insert '(subject to any guidance to the contrary published by the Secretary of State)'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 50, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
 Amendment No. 52, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 20, leave out 'have regard to the need to'.
 Amendment No. 22, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 24, leave out paragraph (e).
 Amendment No. 23, in 
clause 13, page 7, line 24, leave out 'issued' and insert 'published'.

Philip Hammond: Amendments Nos. 78 and 22 may at first sight appear to be purely stylistic in terms of the
 layout of the Bill, but they are not. The effect would be to remove paragraph (e) from subsection (8) and to introduce in its place a qualification to the opening statement in that subsection, which is, after ''must'', to insert the words
''subject to any guidance to the contrary published by the Secretary of State''.
 The intention is to limit the Secretary of State's power to issue guidance. At the moment, the things that the boundary committee must do, which are listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are rendered rather irrelevant by the catch-all power given the Secretary of State in paragraph (e) to issue guidance to which the committee must have regard. I want to allow the Secretary of State to negate any of the requirements placed on the boundary committee by paragraphs (a) to (d), but not to go beyond that. The amendment would limit the Secretary of State's power to negate any of the first four items that the boundary committee has to take into account. 
 If the Minister resists that suggestion—I shall wait with bated breath to see whether he does—perhaps he will consider our alternative, amendment no. 23, which is quite incompatible, but I make no apology for that. It would require the guidance issued by the Secretary of State to be published, because it is not clear whether it would be known to all parties or would merely be private guidance to the boundary committee. If the Minister rejects amendments Nos. 78 and 22, I hope that he will accept amendment No. 23. If he is not feeling magnanimous enough to do that, will he at least read into the record an absolute commitment that any guidance given to the boundary committee will be public? 
 I am afraid that I cannot see the logic of amendment No. 50, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because it would be bizarre indeed to go through this exercise if there was not going to be an elected assembly for the region, and I would not encourage that. I shall listen to what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say about it in a moment, but I cannot see its logic at all. As regards amendment No. 52, I have no massive objection to it, but I cannot see that it adds anything much to the substance of the clause.

Matthew Green: I shall speak to the two amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was rather confused about why we tabled amendment No. 50. It relates to decoupling the process of local government reviews from regional reviews. We find it unacceptable that the Government are now in effect saying that they will not allow any local government review unless it is under a regional assembly. We have had this discussion before, and I am sure that we will continue to do so. The Government are setting their position in stone in a counterproductive way. The Minister may think that all the regions will successfully win regional assemblies within the next few years, but, although I support regional assemblies, I doubt that that will happen. Some parts of the country—I have already mentioned Shropshire and I will not try your patience, Mr. Butterfill, by doing so yet again—want to proceed with local government change without
 having to wait for a regional government before they can do so. The amendment would decouple the local government review from the regional government review.
 Amendment No. 52 would strengthen the regard that the boundary committee will have when it considers an area with regard to the identities and interests of its local communities. By deleting the words 
''have regard to the need to''
 the sentence would start with the word ''must''—that is, that the boundary committee must reflect 
''the identities and interests of local communities''.
 I should have thought that all hon. Members would agree that that is a pretty straightforward requirement. If a boundary review does not do that, it imposes something on people who do not want it. We want to strengthen that point to bring home the fact that the process should be bottom up, not top down. Too much of the Bill smacks of central decision making over people's lives rather than allowing local people to take decisions to run things for themselves. 
 Turning to the Conservative amendments, we are very happy with amendment No. 23 because any provision to publish information on the process can only be good. It will allow the Government to defend themselves against accusations that they are somehow fixing the process, and I hope that it is accepted. 
 Amendments Nos. 78 and 22, however, would restrict the Secretary of State too much, and we cannot bring ourselves to support them. The overall thrust of our amendments is that we seek a bottom-up process that reflects what local people want for their areas rather than a process that is imposed by the Government in Westminster.

Nick Raynsford: Perhaps we should start on the positives rather than the negatives and consider the matters on which there appears to be a degree of agreement. We agree that the outcome should reflect the identities and interests of local communities and have regard to the need for secure, effective and convenient local government. Those are two points on which there does not appear to be any major dissent. There is an issue, to which I shall return in a moment, about the wording of subsection (8)(c), but at least on those two points we appear broadly to agree.
 The consequences of this group of amendments, however, would be deleterious to the implementation of those two objectives. I shall take the amendments not in the sequence in which they have been moved, but in relation to their effects, which is perhaps the most logical sequence in which to consider them. 
 Amendment No. 50 would delete the requirement for the boundary committee to assume the existence of a regional assembly. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge rightly said that that would be nonsense. The Bill requires that assumption because there will be a close working relationship between local and regional government reflecting the facts that action taken on a regional level will affect 
 local areas and that the actions of local authorities will contribute to regional goals. It is therefore important that, in carrying out its review, the boundary commission recognises that reality and has regard to the position that will exist when or shortly after the new authorities are brought into existence. 
 I urge Liberal Democrat Members to recognise that that is plain common sense. I know that they have a theological commitment to carrying out endless reviews, which are part of the Liberal Democrat Valhalla, where constant reviews will take place. I know that they want to reorganise local government without it being linked to implementing elected regional assemblies, but on this occasion I ask them to be pragmatic and sensible, and to accept the logic of the Bill.

Matthew Green: In Shropshire, large numbers of Labour councillors and Labour Members want a unitary Shropshire. A lot of us believe it will be a very long time before we see regional government in the west midlands. Unless the Minister is going to say that he expects a referendum in the west midlands in the next couple of years, he will deeply disappoint many key Labour figures in Shropshire.

Nick Raynsford: I have no intention of disappointing lots of Labour figures in Shropshire because I am doing lots of things to help them; not least, giving them greater powers, freedoms, flexibilities and indeed money to implement their responsibilities. Settlements in Shropshire have been good, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
 Coming back to the critical issue, the unitary authorities and regional authorities should go hand in hand. The boundary committee should properly consider the relationship between the new unitary authorities, which will be created as a result of its deliberations, and the regional authorities, which will result from positive votes in a referendum. 
 I shall not conjecture on when a referendum may be held in the west midlands, but, as I have made clear, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimistic view that there will be no referendum there in the foreseeable future. That is entirely a matter for those in the west midlands and we shall listen closely to the evidence that comes from them. I see no reason to presume, as the hon. Gentleman does, that a referendum in the west midlands is a long way away. 
 Turning to amendment No. 52, the requirement in clause 13 (8)(c) to 
''have regard to the need to reflect the interests and identities of local communities''
 mirrors the requirement in the Local Government Act 1992 and establishes that the considerations of the boundary committee in conducting reviews under the Bill will be similar to any other structural or boundary reviews undertaken under the 1992 Act. Amendment No. 52 would remove the words 
''have regard to the need to''
 and the boundary committee would be under an absolute duty to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. That is an impossible requirement. 
 Any large area includes a large number of different communities. For example, communities of place stem from allegiance to a particular village, town or area; communities of interest result from shared identities and activities such as the interests of parents with children in local schools, play facilities or people who work in a particular industry. Those communities of place and interest often overlap, but their interests will be in conflict in some cases. It is simply not practical for the boundary committee to reflect all the different interests, but it is right that in conducting a review, it should ''have regard'' to them. Amendment No. 52 would make reviews impossible to conclude. 
 On amendments Nos. 22 and 23, the first would delete the requirement for the boundary committee to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The second would require the guidance to be published rather than issued. Hon. Members have suggested that we are trying to interfere with the Committee's independence, but nothing could be further from the truth. The conduct of the review and the committee's assessment of the factors that are relevant are entirely for the committee, but it is clearly right that when conducting a review the committee should have a clear indication of what the Government consider to be important features affecting unitary structure. Besides, when the committee has completed its review and submitted its recommendations, it is for the Government, not the committee, to implement any structural and boundary changes. In doing so, the Government can make modifications to the committee's recommendations. In that respect, the approach adopted in the Bill is no different from that adopted in the 1992 Act. Given the Government's role in implementation, it is proper that the boundary committee should know the issues that the Government believe are important in deciding what structural and boundary changes are appropriate for a region. 
 The approach in the Bill to guidance is the same as that adopted by the then Government in relation to the reviews conducted in the 1990s. The then Secretary of State issued draft guidance for consultation prior to enactment of the 1992 Act and, subsequently, a number of versions of policy and procedure guidance to the Local Government Commission for England, which was then the responsible body. They were publicly available and we intend to ensure that the guidance we issue to the boundary committee will be in the public domain. It is for that reason that we have published a draft of the guidance for consultation and I assure the Committee that the final guidance will also be published. 
 I hope that hon. Members will recognise that for those reasons the amendments are either undesirable or unnecessary and will not press them.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance on publication and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
clause 13, page 7, line 15, after 'must', insert 
 '(in addition to the requirements with regard to consultation set out in the 2000 Act)'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 65, in
clause 13, page 7, line 24, at end add— 
 '(f) consult members of the public, employee representatives in the relevant local authorities, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, chambers of commerce and trade organisations, Confederation of British Industry and other significant business organisations in the area, fire and civil defence authorities, Flood Defence Committees, Government Offices (Regions), Local Government Association and National Association of Local Councils, Local Strategic Partnerships, Lords Lieutenant in the region, Magistrates' Courts Committees, National Park Authorities, if appropriate, parish and town councils in the region, charter trustees in the region, passenger transport authorities, police authorities, port authorities, Port Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts, Probation Committees, Regional Chamber, Rural Community Councils, if appropriate, Sea Fisheries Committees, Voluntary Sector Bodies, waste disposal authorities, Regional Development Agencies.'.
 Amendment No. 66, in 
clause 14, page 7, line 30, after column, insert 
 'with the additional requirement that all reports submitted under the provisions of the 1992 Act shall be published'.
 Again, we have spent well over an hour discussing the clause and I think we shall have covered all the matters that might be dealt with on stand part. If hon. Members are generally happy with that—

Graham Stringer: None of the amendments has covered the subsections on page 6 of the Bill.

John Butterfill: In that case, I am happy to allow a clause stand part debate.

Philip Hammond: Of course, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley could table amendments, just as Opposition Members can. It would be nice to see some amendments tabled by Labour Back Benchers for debate next week.
 The amendment simply seeks some clarification. As the Minister drew attention to the complex interaction of the 1992 Act, the Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, I suspect that it may be technically defective. I have sought to make the specific requirements on the boundary committee under subsection (8) subject to a general requirement to follow the 
''requirements with regard to consultation set out in the 2000 Act''.
 The 2000 Act does not set out any specific requirements. In turn, it transfers functions set out for local government commissioners for England under the 1992 Act to the boundary committee. I hope that, somewhere in all that, a general requirement is now set on the boundary committee to consult, and that the Minister will simply confirm that that is in addition to the specific considerations that it is required to follow in subsection (8) and not replaced by them. 
 Amendment No. 65 left me gasping for breath and scratching my head, trying to think of anyone in the region not included in the definitions. I thought that I had thought of one or two examples, but they were covered when I checked. Every citizen would be covered, and many would be covered many times. On a serious point, I ask the hon. Member for 
 Kingston and Surbiton what the purpose of the amendment is. Do the Liberal Democrats accept the principles of representative democracy? The amendment drives a stake through the heart of the idea of elected representatives who speak for a community, by seeking to consult so widely that the process of representative democracy becomes meaningless. 
 Amendment No. 66 deals with publication. We are always in favour of that, and would be happy to support the amendment.

Edward Davey: I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman and explain why we tabled amendment No. 65. I expect a Valhalla response from the Minister—I hope he understands why we have included the organisations. We have done so due to annexe C of his draft guidance. He might refer us to clause 13(8)(e), which suggests that the boundary committee should have regard to the guidance. Annexe C of that guidance was eminently sensible. We thought that some of those organisations—the Government were minded that the boundary committee should consult them—should be mentioned in the Bill.
 Having read annexe C, we also thought that there were one or two omissions, especially of organisations that represent the employees involved. Labour Back Benchers who have connections with trade unions will be surprised that, according to the Minister's draft guidance, trade unions will not be consulted at all. Given that many employees in local authorities will be affected, I would have thought that Labour Members would be concerned that the Government did not think trade unions worthy of being consulted on issues that affect jobs, employment contracts and possibly even salaries. 
 I find it shocking that the Minister did not even think about adding trade unions to the draft guidance. I therefore hope that he and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge can understand why we wanted to include our own set of potential consultees, which were similar to the draft guidance but with additions. The other group that we added—it is not an organisation—is members of the public, who we felt should be consulted. That should not just be in the guidance but in the Bill. 
 Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I can think of some other organisations to add but we wanted to keep to the Government's list, plus the two omissions: members of the public—the taxpayers—and trade unions. Amendment No. 66 would ensure that the reports required under the 1992 Act are published. That is the right approach.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is absolutely right: the relationship between the Bill and the 1992 Act is crucial to understanding the obligations for consultation. The 1992 Act—not the 2000 Act—is the relevant legislation. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are no particular consultation obligations in respect of this type of review in the 2000 Act.
 We expect the boundary committee to take steps to inform all interested parties about their draft and final recommendations and the period within which they can make representations. They must also deposit copies of recommendations in the principal office of any principal council. In practice, all past reviews have published full reports and the boundary committee will doubtless do the same. 
 On amendment No. 65, the boundary committee is already required to consult interested parties as a result of the 1992 legislation. It is also required to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In the draft guidance, on which we are currently consulting, hon. Members will see that the Government suggest who those interested parties might be. Chapter 6 of the draft guidance also spells out who should be consulted and how such consultation may be achieved. It includes a recommendation that the boundary committee write to all the principal local authorities, to Members of Parliament in the region and to other representative organisations. It also suggests that the committee publish advertisements in one or more local newspapers and take such other steps as seem necessary to provide suitable publicity. 
 Hon. Members will recognise that the organisations listed in amendment No. 65 are all included in the guidance, with the exception of local government employee representatives; I am more than happy to add them to the list in the guidance. I have spent a lot of time in the past few months dealing with employee representatives in the local government sector and I am happy to ensure that there is continued consultation with them. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will be pleased with that and that they recognise that there was a twofold danger in listing organisations in the Bill. First, it would weaken the position of any organisations that are inadvertently left out because, by inference, there would be a presumption that they should not be consulted; secondly, should any of the organisations change their names or titles there would be a requirement to change primary legislation, which would be very burdensome.

Kevan Jones: I crave my right hon. Friend's indulgence. The proposal refers to
''employee representatives in the relevant local authorities''.
 Would it be possible to add trade unions in general? There may be trade unions in regions that do not necessarily have members in local authorities but who will be interested in the regional economy and so on.

Nick Raynsford: I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend's recommendation, which will undoubtedly improve the reference in the guidance—

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister explain why those people were left out in the first place?

Nick Raynsford: It is not a question of their being left out. The danger of a list is that an inadvertent omission results in inferences being drawn that would be wholly unwarranted. As I said, I have spent a great deal of time in recent months talking to employee organisations and no one should infer that there is a reluctance to do so.
 In practice, we want the boundary committee to consult with all the people and organisations that have an interest. The 1992 Act already achieves that. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment No. 79 and not press amendments Nos. 65 and 66.

Philip Hammond: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Butterfill: We have had a long discussion on most of the points relating to the Bill, but I accept that clause 13(2) has not been dealt with adequately. It is particularly topical given press comment today.

Graham Stringer: Clause 13 involves a definition and I should like to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister's reasoning on the choice of the figures used by the Office for National Statistics for the number of people living in an area. Normally, I would accept that the ONS figure would be better than that from the electoral register, because a number of people are not entitled to vote. If we had had a good census and if the figures coming out of the ONS under the guidance of Mr. Cook had been as they were in the past, we would have expected the figure to be larger than that from the electoral register.
 Some parts of the country will not be affected by the Bill, such as Chelsea in London, but other parts will be affected. I am thinking primarily of Manchester, but there are many other areas where there are large student populations, large ethnic minority populations and poor populations, and where I think that Mr. Cook has got his figures dramatically wrong. His figures for the number of people living in Manchester, for example, are way below those in every other source of statistical information used by the health service, local government and the electoral registration officer. In those circumstances, unless Mr. Cook learns how to count or changes his mind, there will in all probability be legal challenges. Given the incompetence of the conduct of the 2001 census, it is dangerous to put that definition in the Bill to guide the Secretary of State in relation to the obligations under clause 12.

Edward Davey: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. This very serious matter affects a number of councils. He mentioned Manchester, but a number of other councils in London and in other metropolitan areas are affected for the reasons that he outlined. The Government need to address that rather more profoundly than simply by saying that we have floors and ceilings to protect councils financially. The issue is more profound and longer lasting, and the Government must address it directly.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley has made a perfectly valid point. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly stresses, it is not just a question of floors and ceilings being available to mitigate the consequences of
 significant changes in the local government settlement, although the floors and ceilings have given very necessary relief to authorities that might otherwise have encountered serious disruption of their budgeting as a consequence of the latest figures.
 The issue is difficult because it is not for our Department to substitute our judgment for that of the usual bodies responsible for conducting population censuses and producing the best professional estimates of population figures for any area. Electoral registers, as my hon. Friend rightly recognised, do not measure population. They exclude all of those who are not entitled to vote. People below the age of 18 will not feature unless they are approaching that age. Others are not eligible to vote because they are refugees or excluded from entitlement to vote due to other circumstances and will also not appear. 
 The Office for National Statistics seeks to represent the total population figure. Its figures are the official and most objective measure, irrespective of any comment one could make about the most recent census. I have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend because he has raised an issue that is of concern to other hon. Members because of the implications of the latest figures from the 2001 census. Those issues need to be taken up with the ONS, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and other concerned hon. Members will do that. 
 It would not be right for us to substitute an alternative source of statistics to the one that is normally recognised as the appropriate and right source of population measurements. We could not substitute the electoral register for the reasons that my hon. Friend has already conceded, which I hope he will recognise.

Graham Stringer: I accept my right hon. Friend's logic, but would he agree that it is a matter of concern when the figures that are advanced by Mr. Cook of the ONS in some cases suggest numbers of people lower than the number registered to pay council tax? That is an extraordinary state of affairs. Mr. Cook would have to presume that non-existent people are putting forward their names to pay council tax. I hope that my right hon. Friend recognises that problem.

Nick Raynsford: There are obviously some extremely devoted and dedicated people who want to pay council tax to Manchester city council, but otherwise do not want their existence to be recognised.
 My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There are questions about the validity of population estimates at all times, and it is right that such questions should be taken up with the ONS by concerned hon. Members. I do not think that Mr. Cook, the responsible chief official, is necessarily personally responsible for those estimates, but he carries overall responsibility for the office. I am sure that the right way forward is for my hon. Friend and other interested Members to take their concerns to the ONS. I hope that the Committee recognises that we have to continue to use ONS statistics as the base when operating on population estimates. With those comments, I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 13 should stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Woolas.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 17 December at half-past Ten o'clock.